creating chairs

      I was substituting yesterday for a class that watched a film about art and design. It showcased the Bauhuas art school that was in Germany prior to WWII. The film followed the start of modernism in furniture design. It showed many design ideas but focused on the chair - as the narrator said the chair was the true test of any designer.
      One designer stated in an interviewer that he made crazy chairs. That they weren't comfortable. He would sit in a comfortable chair and look at the modern one. He stated that is what they were for: looking at. This struck a cord with me as we try and try to be modern and find new and amazing things for our classrooms. But are they useful? The purpose behind modernism was to rid the world of the useless and frivolous design gunk. All the ornaments and extra metal attached to everything. They liked the idea that they could make a high quality item in large amounts and sell them at low costs. Easy living was the idea.    
      We can take this idea to schools in the idea that we streamline everything. But at what cost. Is it crazy and new but all we want is to stay where we were and look at it? Modernism often looks like the best route to go. But when research is done on education some of the top schools in the country (if we think of Phillips Exeter then on to Harvard) are old and follow old 'frivolous' designs. In another of my classes this semester we read a book that talked about science education. The main idea was that although we can invent new experiments and new technologies to deliver it all Science (as an entity) hash;t changed in years. Things have added (mapping the human genome as an example) but the basics have been stable for  a long time. The material isn't changing so why does the delivery have to move by leaps and bounds?
      I have always seen modernism as an exciting path (who does't love walking around an Ikea and rethinking their entire house) but not one that lasts the times.